BuffettNews.com

SchoolGirlHeart wrote:I believe tha Second Amendment gives me the right to carry a weapon. That weapon must be properly registered and correctly used, loosely akin to an automobile. If I use the weapon incorrectly, I can be fined or criminally charged, much like with an automobile.

I don't carry a weapon every day. But in certain circumstances and environments, I've sure been glad I had it if I needed it. There are certain places (malls, for instance) that I now prefer to carry a weapon, since those places have become targets for nutcases who want to go out in a blaze of glory.

Living near a mall shooting, Tacoma Mall and recently a shooting at a festival in Seattle. It's a damn serious consideration that's for sure. And on top of all this the Seattle mayor wants to forbid firearms at, I think all public places - I know it's for sure at public parks, not sure if it includes malls. The sad thing about that is this guy goes everywhere with a brigade of police officers. He's so freaking out of touch with reality it's not funny.

I'll go shopping with you anytime!!

rednekkPH wrote:

nutmeg wrote:Just curious....for those of you who feel you need to keep guns on hand to defend your home/family from armed intruders is it it that common an occurence where you live?

It only needs to occur once.

And I believe that it would be a much more common occurence if the intruders knew that the occupants of the homes they were breaking into were unarmed.

True, no area is immune to crime. We do have crime here... I don't feel it is likely enough to have me go out and get a gun, however. In order to be effective, the gun would have to be loaded and handy....and that is just asking for unintended things to happen. If they are properly locked up, how can they be useful in a break in?

When I read the crime log, the first thing listed as taken in most break ins are the owner's firearms. Of course the bad guys rob the home when no one is home or it might be a case of poetic justice.
Getting those guns seems to be one of the main reasons to rob a place.

Earlier this year 3 men broke into Joe Gun in Sanford (around 10 miles from here) and stole nearly the entire inventory. Blessedly someone they tried to sell one to reported them and most (but not all) of the guns were recovered. Several hundred guns in the place certainly didn't deter those guys....

This is just one of those issues where neither side will ever convince the other side of the validity of their concerns. But discussion is good so we can each see where the other is coming from and hopefully understand the concerns we all have.

nutmeg wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

nutmeg wrote:Just curious....for those of you who feel you need to keep guns on hand to defend your home/family from armed intruders is it it that common an occurence where you live?

It only needs to occur once.

And I believe that it would be a much more common occurence if the intruders knew that the occupants of the homes they were breaking into were unarmed.

True, no area is immune to crime. We do have crime here... I don't feel it is likely enough to have me go out and get a gun, however. In order to be effective, the gun would have to be loaded and handy....and that is just asking for unintended things to happen. If they are properly locked up, how can they be useful in a break in?

I appear to be in a minority here, but the highlighted phrase echoes my opinion.
A baseball bat in the closet is nearly as effective as a gun, and there will be no "accidents" with a baseball bat.

There is not, nor will there ever be, a gun in my house

z-man wrote:

nutmeg wrote:

rednekkPH wrote:

nutmeg wrote:Just curious....for those of you who feel you need to keep guns on hand to defend your home/family from armed intruders is it it that common an occurence where you live?

It only needs to occur once.

And I believe that it would be a much more common occurence if the intruders knew that the occupants of the homes they were breaking into were unarmed.

True, no area is immune to crime. We do have crime here... I don't feel it is likely enough to have me go out and get a gun, however. In order to be effective, the gun would have to be loaded and handy....and that is just asking for unintended things to happen. If they are properly locked up, how can they be useful in a break in?

I appear to be in a minority here, but the highlighted phrase echoes my opinion.
A baseball bat in the closet is nearly as effective as a gun, and there will be no "accidents" with a baseball bat.

There is not, nor will there ever be, a gun in my house

My guns are well behaved. They stay where they are put. On the other hand, one son hit the other son with the baseball bat. It was an accident. I think we need a 15 day waiting list to purchase a baseball bat. Remember a photographer was responsible for killing Princess Diana.... should we restrict we restrict the purchase of film? Just how many rolls of film should a photographer be allowed to carry?

Wino you know wrote:

Garry, Neither thanks! I promise you really don't want me shooting a gun at anything. (I'm not terribly coordinated)

With a little luck I'll get by. Somehow I don't think my end with be as the victim of a violent crime....the way I'm going I'll prolly die in a fall.

nutmeg wrote:Garry, Neither thanks! I promise you really don't want me shooting a gun at anything. (I'm not terribly coordinated)

With a little luck I'll get by. Somehow I don't think my end with be as the victim of a violent crime....the way I'm going I'll prolly die in a fall.

Nancy:
I wish you could've been around when I first learned how to shoot.
Whenever I'd go to the range for some BADLY needed practice, anyone who was with me would go stand by the target just so they could feel safe.
It's like a couple other things I enjoy doing. At first I was terrible, but eventually, with a little practice, and LOTS of patience from the other parties involved, I eventually got to the point where I was no longer being used to time an egg.

And no, you will not ever be the victim of a violent crime.
Because if anyone ever messes with you, me and my friend "ROSCOE" will definately put an abrupt end to that.

Proponent of our right to own a gun.

But also, a proponent of strict gun control.
I do believe big cities, in declared emergencies, should have the right to control & regulate handguns, through strict registration enforcement, and search & seizure.
I don't feel we, as a society, have any reasonable right to own assault weapons. The defense of owning such weaponry, IMO, is coupled with paranoia and lunacy.


Controlling weapons in our society is akin to supporting the Patriot Act.
Nuts with guns are no different than terrorists in our midst, aren't they?

flyboy55 wrote:

ragtopW wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:Serious question:

If the Second Amendment means what gun enthusiasts think it means (ie no infringement of my right to keep and bear arms)

then why can't I own a Hirtenberger 60mm commando mortar or Paladin M109A6 self-propelled Howitzer, for example?

I would appreciate a serious response.

Read (I think) Thomas Paynes thoughts..
His thoughts (If I got the right One) are that
we should be armed with pretty much what ever it takes ,
if the need arises to over through the government
if they usurp our rights...

so yes..

So if I understand you correctly, the intent of the Second Amendment is to make sure the citizenry has access to enough fire power to overthrow the government ("whatever it takes").

Would you say the Second Amendment allows me to have guided missiles with nuclear warheads?

This isn't a frivolous matter. I've heard a lot of people express the opinion over the years that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Furthermore, the same people hold that attempts to regulate the firepower available to citizens (handgun bans, limitations on clip sizes, background checks, restricting access to fully automatic weapons, etc) constitute an infringement of citizens' constitutional rights.

If that is the case, should private citizens have at their disposal enough firepower to overthrow the U.S. government (ie missiles, nuclear weapons, etc)?

I have written this twice.. in an effort to keep it short..

No.. the answer to the WMD queston..
and the reason is.. a nuke takes out a city.. or two..
the population goes away.. not (always) the leaders
IMHO to overthrow the government you need to replace the existing leaders with a new bunch.
killing the whole city does not do this.. all you do is.. kill a bunch of pholks
who at least some of, you are in the common fight with (on the same side)

overthrowing the government may require fighting the soliders and police but not the whole population..


AND to be honest.. how many of the Military go AWOL if one of the leaders try
to become "President for life"

Police too...


WOW I had to think...

<< back to bed..

Lightning Bolt wrote: I don't feel we, as a society, have any reasonable right to own assault weapons. The defense of owning such weaponry, IMO, is coupled with paranoia and lunacy.

What is the difference between this:



and this:



other than clip size????

Staredge wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote: I don't feel we, as a society, have any reasonable right to own assault weapons. The defense of owning such weaponry, IMO, is coupled with paranoia and lunacy.

What is the difference between this:



and this:

about $1000- $1500

ragtopW wrote:
about $1000- $1500

And I'm too bloody poor to afford either of them!!!

(and you're not helping)

Staredge wrote:

ragtopW wrote:
about $1000- $1500

And I'm too bloody poor to afford either of them!!!

(and you're not helping)

me too..

Tequila Revenge wrote:

z-man wrote: I appear to be in a minority here, but the highlighted phrase echoes my opinion.
A baseball bat in the closet is nearly as effective as a gun, and there will be no "accidents" with a baseball bat.

There is not, nor will there ever be, a gun in my house

My guns are well behaved. They stay where they are put. On the other hand, one son hit the other son with the baseball bat. It was an accident. I think we need a 15 day waiting list to purchase a baseball bat. Remember a photographer was responsible for killing Princess Diana.... should we restrict we restrict the purchase of film? Just how many rolls of film should a photographer be allowed to carry?

PM incoming with "the rest of the story"

Lightning Bolt wrote: I don't feel we, as a society, have any reasonable right to own assault weapons.

What is an assault weapon? That term is nothing more than an emotional term used by the anti-gun crown to build a consensus in their favor. I'm not looking for a fight just contributing to the point the photos above make. The difference is one of those weapons is considered an assault weapon because of the pistol grip. other than that they are the same - different manufacturers but same caliber bullets shot, same clips, either can be modified to full automatic. I prefer the Ruger.

Staredge wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote: I don't feel we, as a society, have any reasonable right to own assault weapons. The defense of owning such weaponry, IMO, is coupled with paranoia and lunacy.

What is the difference between this:



and this:



other than clip size????

Intent and capability of firepower.

Personally, if you can't hit your target (and I'm referring to wild game)
in TWO shots, then you need practice (or a better scope)...

..NOT the ability to squeeze off 10 more shots
(because now you're probably hunting humans)

SharkOnLand wrote:

flyboy55 wrote:This isn't a frivolous matter. I've heard a lot of people express the opinion over the years that the Second Amendment means EXACTLY what it says:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

You've "interpreted" the 2nd amendment in your own way. It could also be two completely separate thoughts:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, (and) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Not knowing the original intent of the writer, the comma could easily be interpreted as a separation of two separate thoughts.

If they were two thoughts, there would be utterly no point to the first thought. I don't give a rat's ass if people want to keep guns & use them responsibly. However, I am horrfied by the strained logic used to explain what actually is not that ambiguous.

If you want to keep a gun - enjoy. Own as many as you want. Hell, you want to own a bazooka or rocket launcher to shoot down the black helicopters when they come, have at it.

Use your gun or bazooka illegally and you should spend a very long time behind bars.

That is all.

Oh yeah - if the right is absolute then it is a right that belongs to everybody. From the dr. or dentist who really needs a gun to deal with addicts who might try and break in, to the 18 year old kid who wants to have a gun to feel cool. It's everyone's right.

Myself, I DON'T own a gun because I just don't feel I need one or want one. Maybe someday when I have some flashy stuff like a super nice car and I feel like I might get carjacked, well then maybe I'll get a gun...On 2nd thought, maybe I'll just keep driving a small VW so I don't have 2 worry about somebody trying to carjack my BMW...

Plus I don't trust my temper enough when I am stuck in traffic in front of aholes who try to cut through bumper to bumper traffic.

No gun 4 me, but glad I can make my own decison on the issue.

Lightning Bolt wrote: Intent and capability of firepower.

Personally, if you can't hit your target (and I'm referring to wild game)
in TWO shots, then you need practice (or a better scope)...

..NOT the ability to squeeze off 10 more shots

Capability??? They're chambered for the same round. The Mini-14 comes with a 5 round clip. The Bushmaster comes with a 20. Both are semi-automatics. The ONLY other difference is appearance. "Assault rifles" are functionally no different...they merely look different. Intent?? What does that have to do with it?? If I'm shooting it, I'm intending to kill what I'm shooting at, whether that be a paper target or a deer. Makes no difference what the gun looks like. A Corvette and a Kia both get you where you're going. Do you automatically assume that the Corvette driver is a reckless fool intent on breaking every law, both physical and legislative, on his way to wherever??

I'm partial to single shot rifles myself. I believe in the one shot-one kill method of hunting. My .22 will carry 10 in the tube. I load it all so I don't have to carry loose ammo. I load 4 in the .30-06 I use when I deer hunt. (belongs to my F-I-L) Why? So I don't have to carry loose ammo. No noise. Has nothing to do with needing more firepower to kill something.

(because now you're probably hunting humans)

This statement is both asinine and insulting.

***Note for clarification*** Looking at the picture of the Bushmaster, I believe those may be 30 round mags. I learned to shoot AR-15s from old Vietnam hands, and they didn't like 30s and didn't fully load 20s, so I've always thought of a 20 round mag as being stock.

Wino you know wrote:

nutmeg wrote:Garry, Neither thanks! I promise you really don't want me shooting a gun at anything. (I'm not terribly coordinated)

With a little luck I'll get by. Somehow I don't think my end with be as the victim of a violent crime....the way I'm going I'll prolly die in a fall.

Nancy:
I wish you could've been around when I first learned how to shoot.
Whenever I'd go to the range for some BADLY needed practice, anyone who was with me would go stand by the target just so they could feel safe.
It's like a couple other things I enjoy doing. At first I was terrible, but eventually, with a little practice, and LOTS of patience from the other parties involved, I eventually got to the point where I was no longer being used to time an egg.

And no, you will not ever be the victim of a violent crime.
Because if anyone ever messes with you, me and my friend "ROSCOE" will definately put an abrupt end to that.

I LOVE ROSCOE!!! He just cracked me up!!!